Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> ... >> Furthermore, DNS URIs do not require the use of the DNS protocol at >> all, it just denote a DNS resource. DNS URIs can be resolved via HTTP >> or something else. Having the RD bit present is a hint to the DNS >> protocol; the RD bit has no connection with the DNS resource that the >> URI denote. >> ... > > very well. then i request that you remove the "hostport" from the syntax.
The rationale being? The hostport describes the authority that know the intended DNS resource. An authority is useful even for abstract, non-DNS-protocol, DNS resources. DNS resources themselves are indexed by (NAME, CLASS, TYPE), but to distinguish between the answer that entity A knows/generate, and the answer that entity B knows/generate, an authority scope like "hostport" is needed. Most applications probably will not care, and use the "default" authority, trusting the local server to do the right thing. But for internal DNS environments, specifying the authority could be required. I agree it is less confusing if the word "hostport" was avoided, and the word "authority" is used instead. Also, using the word "authority" instead of "server" elsewhere would also improve matters. I have made this change for the next revision, a snapshot is available from <http://josefsson.org/draft-josefsson-dns-url.txt>. Thanks, Simon